May 24, 2012

Illinois Employers Take Note: Retaliatory Discharge Claims Are Alive and Well

The Illinois Supreme Court first recognized the tort of retaliatory discharge in 1978 in Kelsay v. Motorola. Importantly, the court found that retaliatory discharge is an exception to the general rule in Illinois that employment is terminable “at will” for any or no cause. One year later, the state legislature passed the Illinois Human Rights Act, thus creating the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission to investigate and decide civil rights violations.

The Human Rights Act—along with the various rules and regulations put in place by the Department of Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission—establishes a comprehensive administrative procedure governing alleged civil rights violations. Except for a limited exception, a plaintiff’s sole source of redress is through the administrative procedures set forth in the act.

Under the act, “retaliation” against a person based on unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment in employment/higher education, or because the individual filed a charge or participated in the related investigation or hearing is considered a violation. However, in Blount v. Stroud, the Illinois Supreme Court recently affirmed that the common law tort of retaliatory discharge can provide a basis for imposing liability independent of the Human Rights Act. As long as the claim is not “inextricably linked” to the alleged civil rights violation, the act will not serve to bar an action filed in circuit court.

In the Blount case, the defendant sought to influence the testimony of its employee in an unrelated pending federal civil rights action. When the plaintiff refused to assist her employer and falsely testify, the employer retaliated and eventually terminated the plaintiff. At trial in the circuit court, the plaintiff successfully argued that in addition to remedies available under the act, the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the case, which was decided in favor of the plaintiff and resulted in a multimillion-dollar judgment. Following a round of appeals, the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately upheld the judgment against the defendant for retaliatory discharge.

What does this decision mean for employers in Illinois? In essence, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a company may be required to litigate claims filed by its employees in multiple forums, rather than solely under the Human Rights Act. Before making personnel decisions that could be very costly and time-consuming to defend, employers should carefully weigh the alternatives with counsel.

© 2010 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

James R. Carroll, a Principal in the firm’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Illinois for 15 years under four separate Attorneys General—including serving as First Assistant Attorney General during the administration of Roland W. Burris. A highly experienced litigator, Jim focuses his practice on complex litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both the...

312-521-2721

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.